National Rice and Dal Mills, Rajpura vs Collector, Patiala

D.S. Tewatia, J.(Oral)

Petitioner a partnership firm was granted cash credit limit in the amount of Rs.2,50,000/ against their stocks by the State Bank of Patiala, Rajpura, on 31101969 and as a collateral security the petitioner had deposited title deeds of their properties with the Manager. The Bank, in accordance with rules, desired that a registered letter from the petitioners'' firm acknowledging the creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds be issued. A printed letter Specimen `A'' S.B.P 629 after being duly filled up by the Managing Partner K.K.Gupta and after getting the same registered as a letter of acknowledging hypothecation was then issued by the petitionerfirm. This letter was written on a stamp paper of Rs.2.50 P and a registration fee of Rs.10/ was charged thereon; that under the orders of the Collector, Patiala, respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2, issued a warrant of attachment of movable property of the firm. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Managing Partner of the petitionerfirm on coming to know about the issuance of warrant of attachment met the Tehsildar, Rajpura and asked him as to in which connection warrant of attachment of the property had been issued in the amount of Rs.2,501/. The latter informed him that the Registration Inspector had made an audit note that the registration charges for the letter registered on 31.10.1969 were deficient to the extent of Rs.2,501/ at the rate of Re.1/ per cent of the amount of cash credit limit.

The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid letter of attachment inter alia on the ground that under no law the amount of registration claimed in the attachment notice was payable for the registration of the letter in question.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Assistant Collector respondent No. 2, claim to amount of Rs.2,501/ by way of registration fee is asserted on account of deficiency in registration fee.

The said mere ipse dixit have been reiterated by Mr. Mahajan, counsel appearing for the respondents. He has not been able to identify any provision in any law requiring payment of registration fee at the rate of one per cent on a letter of the kind which merely acknowledged the deposit of the title deeds and by itself created no right of the kind which made it compulsorily registerable under section 17 of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was a document which was registerable under section 18 of the Act and on that the requisite registration fee had already been paid.

For the reasons aforementioned, this petition is allowed and the warrant of attachment is quashed, however, with no order as to costs.